在中风后行动能力恢复方面,IMPlicit 学习法与标准护理的分组随机对照试验(IMPS)。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1177/02692155241267205
Louise Johnson, Jane Burridge, Sean Ewings, Sara Demain
{"title":"在中风后行动能力恢复方面,IMPlicit 学习法与标准护理的分组随机对照试验(IMPS)。","authors":"Louise Johnson, Jane Burridge, Sean Ewings, Sara Demain","doi":"10.1177/02692155241267205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the delivery of rehabilitation using implicit motor learning principles in an acute stroke setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Pilot, assessor-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative evaluation.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Eight inpatient stroke units, UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People within 14 days of stroke onset, presenting with lower limb hemiplegia.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Participants at control clusters received usual care. Participants at intervention clusters received rehabilitation using an Implicit Learning Approach (ILA); primarily consisting of reduced frequency instructions/feedback, and promotion of an external focus of attention. Video recording was used to understand the ability of intervention site therapists to adhere to the implicit learning principles, and to compare differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Ability to recruit and retain clusters/participants; suitability and acceptability of data collection processes; appropriateness of fidelity monitoring methods; and appropriateness of chosen outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight stroke units participated, with four assigned to each group (intervention/control). Fifty-one participants were enrolled (intervention group 21; control group 30). Mean time since stroke was 6 days (SD 3.42; 0-14); mean age was 73 years (SD 14, 25-94). Of those approached to take part, 72% agreed. We found clear differences between groups with respect to the frequency and type of instructional statement. The ILA was acceptable to both patients and therapists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is feasible to evaluate the application and effectiveness of motor learning principles within acute stroke rehabilitation, using a cluster randomised design. A larger study is required to evaluate the benefits of each approach; we provide a range of sample size estimates required for this.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1346-1361"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, of an IMPlicit learning approach versus standard care, on recovery of mobility following stroke (IMPS).\",\"authors\":\"Louise Johnson, Jane Burridge, Sean Ewings, Sara Demain\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02692155241267205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the delivery of rehabilitation using implicit motor learning principles in an acute stroke setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Pilot, assessor-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative evaluation.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Eight inpatient stroke units, UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People within 14 days of stroke onset, presenting with lower limb hemiplegia.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Participants at control clusters received usual care. Participants at intervention clusters received rehabilitation using an Implicit Learning Approach (ILA); primarily consisting of reduced frequency instructions/feedback, and promotion of an external focus of attention. Video recording was used to understand the ability of intervention site therapists to adhere to the implicit learning principles, and to compare differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Ability to recruit and retain clusters/participants; suitability and acceptability of data collection processes; appropriateness of fidelity monitoring methods; and appropriateness of chosen outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight stroke units participated, with four assigned to each group (intervention/control). Fifty-one participants were enrolled (intervention group 21; control group 30). Mean time since stroke was 6 days (SD 3.42; 0-14); mean age was 73 years (SD 14, 25-94). Of those approached to take part, 72% agreed. We found clear differences between groups with respect to the frequency and type of instructional statement. The ILA was acceptable to both patients and therapists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is feasible to evaluate the application and effectiveness of motor learning principles within acute stroke rehabilitation, using a cluster randomised design. A larger study is required to evaluate the benefits of each approach; we provide a range of sample size estimates required for this.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1346-1361\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241267205\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241267205","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估在急性中风环境中利用内隐式运动学习原理进行康复治疗的效果:设计:试点、评估者盲法、分组随机对照试验及嵌套定性评估:地点: 英国八家中风住院部:干预措施:在对照组群中,参加者接受治疗;在观察组群中,参加者接受治疗;在对照组群中,参加者接受治疗:干预措施:对照组的参与者接受常规护理。干预组的参与者接受隐性学习法(ILA)康复训练;主要包括减少指导/反馈频率和促进外部注意力集中。通过录像了解干预点治疗师遵守内隐学习原则的能力,并比较组间差异:衡量标准:招募和保留群组/参与者的能力;数据收集过程的适宜性和可接受性;忠实性监测方法的适宜性;所选结果测量的适宜性:八个卒中单元参与了此次活动,每组(干预组/对照组)各分配了四名参与者。共有 51 人参加(干预组 21 人;对照组 30 人)。平均中风时间为 6 天(SD 3.42;0-14);平均年龄为 73 岁(SD 14,25-94)。在被邀请参加的人员中,72% 表示同意。我们发现各组之间在指导语的频率和类型方面存在明显差异。患者和治疗师都能接受 ILA:采用分组随机设计评估运动学习原则在急性中风康复中的应用和有效性是可行的。需要进行更大规模的研究,以评估每种方法的益处;我们提供了评估所需样本量的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, of an IMPlicit learning approach versus standard care, on recovery of mobility following stroke (IMPS).

Objectives: To evaluate the delivery of rehabilitation using implicit motor learning principles in an acute stroke setting.

Design: Pilot, assessor-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative evaluation.

Setting: Eight inpatient stroke units, UK.

Participants: People within 14 days of stroke onset, presenting with lower limb hemiplegia.

Interventions: Participants at control clusters received usual care. Participants at intervention clusters received rehabilitation using an Implicit Learning Approach (ILA); primarily consisting of reduced frequency instructions/feedback, and promotion of an external focus of attention. Video recording was used to understand the ability of intervention site therapists to adhere to the implicit learning principles, and to compare differences between groups.

Measures: Ability to recruit and retain clusters/participants; suitability and acceptability of data collection processes; appropriateness of fidelity monitoring methods; and appropriateness of chosen outcome measures.

Results: Eight stroke units participated, with four assigned to each group (intervention/control). Fifty-one participants were enrolled (intervention group 21; control group 30). Mean time since stroke was 6 days (SD 3.42; 0-14); mean age was 73 years (SD 14, 25-94). Of those approached to take part, 72% agreed. We found clear differences between groups with respect to the frequency and type of instructional statement. The ILA was acceptable to both patients and therapists.

Conclusion: It is feasible to evaluate the application and effectiveness of motor learning principles within acute stroke rehabilitation, using a cluster randomised design. A larger study is required to evaluate the benefits of each approach; we provide a range of sample size estimates required for this.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
The 9-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-9) has adequate measurement properties in patients with chronic low back pain. A scoping review on motor imagery-based rehabilitation: Potential working mechanisms and clinical application for cognitive function and depression. The effect of brief, repetitive balance training on balance and fall risk in older people with stroke: A randomized controlled trial. "Together is no longer completely together": Exploring the influence of social cognition problems on partner relationships following acquired brain injury. Kinesophobia in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a latent profile analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1